Reckitt Benckiser Pension Fund (CAS-39552-Y8B2)
Ombudsman’s Determination
Outcome
Mr H’s complaint against the Trustees is not upheld.
Complaint summary
Mr H has complained that:-
Mr H’s complaint against the Trustees is not upheld.
Mr H has complained that:-
Mr N’s complaint against the Trustee is partly upheld. To put matters right, the Trustee shall pay Mr N £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience its maladministration has caused him
The complaint should not be upheld against NHS BSA because:-
Mr S’ complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, the Employer shall pay £1,312.50 into the Scheme. The Employer shall ensure that Mr S is not financially disadvantaged by its maladministration. So, it shall arrange for any investment loss to be calculated and paid into the Scheme.
I do not uphold Mr G’s complaint and no further action is required by the Trustee.
Mrs S’ complaint is upheld and, to put matters right, the Employer shall pay £106.08 into the Scheme. The Employer shall ensure that Mrs S is not financially disadvantaged by its maladministration. So, it shall arrange for any investment loss to be calculated and paid into the Scheme.
The complaint should not be upheld because the Trustee is required to pay the pension increases specified in the Fund’s governing documentation (such increases being capped at 3%, subject to any overriding statutory underpin) and in accordance with pensions legislation.
I do not uphold Mr S' complaint and no further action is required by LV.
I do not uphold Mr Y's complaint, and no further action is required by Aviva.
Mr Y complained that Aviva incorrectly deducted commission from a single premium lump sum he paid into the Scheme.
The complaint is partly upheld against Aegon because it has not yet paid Dr D appropriate redress for the period between the date that he invested the transferred cash into his funds with Fidelity and the date that Aegon offered him redress for placing his investments into a cash fund.